The Jesus Myth: An unrelenting case for history

[huckelberry]

Marcus, My familiarity with Bayes is limited to what I have read on this board. Pretty limited clearly but enough to see that there should be some situations where it would very useful. Unless I am misunderstanding writing insurance policies might find it useful. We all saw here it being used to prove the Book of Mormon to be actual history by some huge mathematical relationship. Bayes appears to be useful to give historical speculation or guesswork a patina objectivity.

Any small or more substantial clarification of what it is best used for from those of you who actually know would be a pleasant help.

By employed correctly, i meant inputting appropriate data. You are absolutely correct about the meaningful ways Bayesian analysis can and has been used, but it is my understanding from the previous discussions of Carrier's work here that while his actual analysis may have been technically correct, his starting data is disputed considerably, thus skewing his results to the point where they are virtually meaningless.

In that context, Bayesian analysis is reduced to a club with which to beat one's opponents about the head, while loudly declaring 'probability is on my side!' and not much more.

This reminds me of a study group partner i had in grad school who was an actuary in his previous life. His pain upon seeing people input invalid data into valid methodologies was palpable, and burned into me forever the concept of data GIGO. No matter how sophisticated the analytical technique it is a truism: Garbage in, garbage out.

Marcus, perhaps you have said as much as is reasonable, thankyou. I realize that I was wondering about the difference between using Bayes to estimate frequency of future events as apposed to estimating whether or not a specific past thing happened. I suspect the first is far more useful than the second but that would not mean that there is no usefulness at all there for past events. Percent would say Jesus was not buried but who knows perhaps the exception occurred( or not).

[Kishkumen]

I'd say my initial reaction is it is wildly different from what we'd expect if the gospels were meant as history. I think Dr Miller has a point in regarding the gospels less as any attempt at history and moreso at an attempt at cultic material used to instruct and inspire--not even really biographical. I believe, that's the impression given by Haag in his work on the genre.

Hey, stem. Thanks for the response. What I was looking for, however, was your thoughts on the specifics of Suetonius’ account of Tiberius’ activities on Capri.

[dastardly stem]

It seems to me that in order to ‘make the jump’ from death to ‘life’ and to have a path of continued progress there would have to be some predefined mechanism or way forward besides ‘random chance’.

Death doesn’t beget life by chance over and over again, does it? Or at all, when it comes right down to it. Of course, that is based on a foundational proposition that we continue as sentient entities after we die and that regeneration is even possible.

If you have any other alternatives that are widely accepted having to do with the mechanism/ways or means by which our deaths will morph into continued existence as individual beings/entities I’m all ears.

I suggested there are other options than Jesus or Christianity, either religious or not to imagine a way for life after death. Just because Christianity made up one way, it does not stand to reason that that is the only way, nor the most reasonable, nor the only acceptable way.

As it is, Jesus said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Hold the presses. Someone 2,000 years ago may or may not have said something in a boastful way. Every other human who has ever lived better stop and listen because it may be that some people who lived after him, got wind of something he said and wrote it down in a language he did not speak, in an area he did not live, as these people were trying their best to create a competitive god hero amongst those whom they lived with.

Plausible alternatives?

That's right Christianity isn't all that plausible. And if we inspect it, under some degree of scrutiny it's not all that worth listening to anyway.

[dastardly stem]

I'd say my initial reaction is it is wildly different from what we'd expect if the gospels were meant as history. I think Dr Miller has a point in regarding the gospels less as any attempt at history and moreso at an attempt at cultic material used to instruct and inspire--not even really biographical. I believe, that's the impression given by Haag in his work on the genre.

Hey, stem. Thanks for the response. What I was looking for, however, was your thoughts on the specifics of Suetonius’ account of Tiberius’ activities on Capri.

It's probably been three weeks ago now and I've read too many other things to remember exactly. As I read it, I recall how vividly different it was from the gospel accounts. It felt more alive, if you will, to me. But< i'd have to get back to it when I get a chance to provide any details as per my reaction. Also I just go MacDonald's newest work. I'm eager to get into it. He details all or most of his mimesis examples. I want to read more of the source materials there--hope to get my hands on them. I'll see what I can provide though in the coming days.

[dastardly stem]

Carrier's work here that while his actual analysis may have been technically correct, his starting data is disputed considerably, thus skewing his results to the point where they are virtually meaningless.

I've read every critique I've been able to get my hands on and haven't seen this. Can you point me in the right direction on this?

Thanks, Marcus.

[Marcus]

Carrier's work here that while his actual analysis may have been technically correct, his starting data is disputed considerably, thus skewing his results to the point where they are virtually meaningless.

I've read every critique I've been able to get my hands on and haven't seen this. Can you point me in the right direction on this?

Thanks, Marcus.

I am referring back to a long, long discussion here several years ago, and comments made there. I'll see if I can hunt it up, but the board switchover really did a number on the search feature here. Ill let you know what i find.

[dastardly stem]

I've read every critique I've been able to get my hands on and haven't seen this. Can you point me in the right direction on this?

Thanks, Marcus.

I am referring back to a long, long discussion here several years ago, and comments made there. I'll see if I can hunt it up, but the board switchover really did a number on the search feature here. Ill let you know what i find.

Thank you. I recall hearing about such a discussion here, but I think it was during one my extended breaks from the board and missed it all.

[Kishkumen]

It's probably been three weeks ago now and I've read too many other things to remember exactly. As I read it, I recall how vividly different it was from the gospel accounts. It felt more alive, if you will, to me. But< i'd have to get back to it when I get a chance to provide any details as per my reaction. Also I just go MacDonald's newest work. I'm eager to get into it. He details all or most of his mimesis examples. I want to read more of the source materials there--hope to get my hands on them. I'll see what I can provide though in the coming days.

That's cool. Stylistically, it is quite different from the gospels. Where this discussion gets hung up, in my opinion, is in the implicit demand people like Carrier make that ancient texts conform to modern ideas about fact and truth. Such ideas come out of certain developments in intellectual history that really do not pertain to ancient literature. Everything written in the ancient world must be judged according to the thought world of its time and culture, as best we can understand them.

Tiberius lived on Capri, and many Romans resented his absence because the emperor was expected to be present in the city for Romans. His absence resulted in chaos in the Senate and his unavailability to the People of the city at entertainments, etc. His neglect was attributed to his excessive desire for personal pleasures, which are blown up to mythological proportions. Petronius' Satyricon gives us a sense of where this kind of satirical fantasy comes from. It is a fictional novel, but the spirit of it is not unlike the grotesque scenes in Suetonius' account of Tiberius on Capri. If the rumors about Tiberius were made up or fashioned to conform to models local to the Bay of Naples or Campania, it may be that they were not even real rumors, or the rumors themselves were consciously formed to meet certain tastes and expectations. For these reasons, although it is true that Tiberius lived on Capri for much of the final decade of his life, we cannot be certain that the outlandish descriptions of his actions are true.

Edward Champlin has written about the twisting of folklore about the wise king of the island to make Tiberius look bad in Suetonius' account. Champlin has thus shown why it is we have to be extremely careful when we read Suetonius on this topic. You may want to believe a story was factual--that Tiberius really did have a fisherman's face rubbed raw because he stepped onto a part of Capri he was forbidden to visit--but then the knowledge that the presentation of a fish to the tyrant or king was a commonplace raises important questions about the actual facts. So the line between fact and fiction is not exactly where one might expect. Tiberius lived, but how people felt about his memory profoundly shaped his historical image.

[Craig Paxton]

And let's not forget the parallels between Apollonius and Jesus

https://www.historicmysteries.com/apollonius-of-tyana/

[huckelberry]

And let's not forget the parallels between Apollonius and Jesus

https://www.historicmysteries.com/apollonius-of-tyana/

Apollonius of Tyana’s name stems from where he was born — Tyana in Cappadocia. That is in modern-day Turkey. It is said that he also traveled to Greece and Syria. Jesus Christ traveled the Middle East. There are also claims that Christ went to India during the years of his life for which the Bible does not account. Therefore, there is a chance that the two crossed paths and competed with one another for followers.

The article starts with two pictures one of Jesus and the other Apollonius. It is surprising how much they resemble each other. Though I might note that the style of painting appears to be a thousand years after Jesus and Apollonius lived. It is possible they are not accurate images.

The idea of Jesus in India is pretty modern. wikapedia has an interesting note;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_years_of_Jesus

In 1887, Russian war correspondent Nicolas Notovitch claimed that while at the Hemis Monastery in Ladakh, he had learned of a document called the "Life of Saint Issa, Best of the Sons of Men" – Isa being the Arabic name of Jesus in Islam.[29][30][31] Notovitch's story, with a translated text of the "Life of Saint Issa", was published in French in 1894 as La vie inconnue de Jesus Christ (Unknown Life of Jesus Christ).[5][31]

According to the scrolls, Jesus abandoned Jerusalem at the age of 13 and set out towards Sindh, “intending to improve and perfect himself in the divine understanding and to studying the laws of the great Buddha”. He crossed Punjab and reached Puri Jagannath where he studied the Vedas under Brahmin priests. He spent six years in Puri and Rajgirh, near Nalanda, the ancient seat of Hindu learning. Then he went to the Himalayas, and spent time in Tibetan monasteries, studying Buddhism,[29] and through Persia, returned to Jerusalem at the age of 29.

Notovitch's writings were immediately controversial and Max Müller stated that either the monks at the monastery had deceived Notovitch (or played a joke on him), or he had fabricated the evidence.[29][32][33] Müller then wrote to the monastery at Hemis and the head lama replied that there had been no Western visitor at the monastery in the past fifteen years and there were no documents related to Notovitch's story.[34] J. Archibald Douglas then visited Hemis monastery and interviewed the head lama who stated that Notovitch had never been there.[34] Indologist Leopold von Schroeder called Notovitch's story a "big fat lie".[35] Wilhelm Schneemelcher states that Notovich's accounts were soon exposed as fabrications, and that to date no one has even had a glimpse at the manuscripts Notovitch claims to have had.[5]

Notovich responded to claims to defend himself.[36] But once his story had been re-examined by historians – some even questioning his existence – it is claimed that Notovitch confessed to having fabricated the evidence.[35] Bart D. Ehrman states that "Today there is not a single recognized scholar on the planet who has any doubts about the matter. The entire story was invented by Notovitch, who earned a good deal of money and a substantial amount of notoriety for his hoax".[37] However, others deny that Notovich ever accepted the accusations against him – that his account was a forgery, etc. Although he was not impressed with his story, Sir Francis Younghusband recalls meeting Nicolas Notovitch near Skardu, not long before Notovitch had visited Hemis monastery.[38]

In 1922, Swami Abhedananda, the president of the Vedanta Society of New York between 1897 and 1921 and the author of several books, went to the Himalayas on foot and reached Tibet, where he studied Buddhist philosophy and Tibetan Buddhism. He went to the Hemis Monastery, and allegedly found the manuscript translated by Notovitch, which was a Tibetan translation of the original scrolls written in Pali. The lama said that it was a copy and that the original was in a monastery at Marbour near Lhasa. After Abhedananda's death in 1939, one of his disciples inquired about the documents at the Hemis monastery, but was told that they had disappeared.

I believe I have heard Bart mention using similarities between Jesus and others as a teaching device, no need to add the fantastical supports.